A Locksmith

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/05/29) */
This is a matter between the customer and the merchant. However, we are in the process of attempting to work with the merchant to resolve the issue on behalf of Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] will be issued credit if we are able to resolve the matter...

in his favor.
He may also contact the merchant and attempt to resolve it directly with them.

On June 6, 2017, we received the cardholder’s identification card. As an exception, we will not request a bill for address verification due to the address on the photo identification card matches to the address on file.
 
On June 9, 2017, per the cardholder’s request we have transferred the remaining balance of $96.77 to the active card ending in [redacted], and we have closed out the account with card ending in [redacted]. We attempted to contact the cardholder at the telephone number provided but there was no answer, and a voicemail message was left.  The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted]

On 3/30/16 we apologized to the customer for the restriction which prevented her bill payment transactions from posting. As a one-time courtesy, we credited each customer account. We also advised the customer that purchase cashback transactions may be used as a fee-free alternative to ATM...

withdrawals.

On February 24, 2017, the cardholder contacted Accountnow to report her card lost.  The cardholder failed the security questions and a verification documents were requested before a new card could be issued.   The cardholder later contacted ACcountNow advising that she wanted to...

update the address. The agent advised the cardholder that documents were needed before the address could be updated and provided the upload portal site for the cardholder to send the documents too.
 
On February 26, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding her card, again the agent advised the cardholder documents were needed and the review timeframes once received.  The cardholder requested the replacement card be expedited when the review was complete.
 
On March 2, 2017, we reviewed the cardholder’s illegible photo identification card and a mailer.  We requested the cardholder provide a clear copy of the photo identification card and a utility bill.
 
On March 3, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding the status of her documents, the agent advised the cardholder that documents were received and that a clear copy of the photo identification card and a utility bill were still needed.
 
On March 4 and Marc 6, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding the status of her documents, the cardholder was advised that there were no updates and the of the document review timeframes.
 
On March 7, 2017, we reviewed the cardholder’s photo identification card and an envelope. We requested that the cardholder provide a utility bill for address verification. The cardholder contacted AccountNow for an update and was advised that a utility bill was needed.  The customer requested a card to card transfer be done to another account.  The agent advised the cardholder this could not be processed while the current account was still restricted.
 
On March 9, 2017, upon receipt of the complaint AccountNow re-reviewed the documents sent in.  The address on the photo identification card did match the address on the envelope from Farmers Insurance with the exception of the City being different.    The cardholder has a second account that shows the new address as well.  Per the cardholders request we transferred the balance of $3627.82 from the account in question and posted the funds to the cardholder’s active account in which she had the card.  We called the cardholder to advise of the transfer at the telephone number provided but there was no answer and a voicemail message was left. This current account has been permanently closed.  The cardholder has been actively using the second account the funds were transferred to. 
The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at ([redacted].Tell us why here...

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/07/21) */
We apologize for the delay in receiving the card. Our records indicate that the card was expedited on 6/8/15 and activated by the customer on 6/14/15.

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/01) */
The account was verified and reinstated. We will close the account as requested once the balance is exhausted.

On July 19, 2017, the investigator submitted the transaction for a merchant chargeback based on the following information:
The cardholder states she was double charged by Comcast.
The cardholder states she has contacted the merchant but they have not returned her funds.
The cardholder...

states she was only supposed to be charged one time for $211.91 from Comcast. There was an authorization from the merchant for $211.91 on July 5, 2017 followed by an additional transaction for $211.91 on July 7, 2017. We contacted Comcast but they stated they could not release information to 3rd parties.
The dispute was pending for the final outcome until September 5, 2017.
 
On September 6, 2017, the dispute was finalized and the dispute final resolution letter was mailed to the cardholder advising:
 
Based on our investigation, we have determined that an error has occurred. On July 19, 2017, a provisional credit was applied to your card account. As of this date, $211.91 of the provisional credit amount issued is now final. Any fee credits in connection with the disputed transaction(s) are also now final. If this final amount does not account for the total amount of your error claim, please refer to the other communications regarding your error claim.
 
The cardholder requested for the card to be closed on July 8, 2017. We have processed an expedited check with the remaining balance of $215.13 to the cardholder’s address listed in the complaint received. Please allow up to 3 business days to receive the expedited check. We apologize for the inconvenience that this matter may have caused you. The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].
 Tell us why here...

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/15) */
The customer claims that he opened the account and arranged for his tax refund to be deposited. The account was opened on 7/26/15 and the address is: [redacted]. On 8/10/15, the customer reported that the transaction...

activity was fraud. A dispute was filed for the transactions that the customer states were not performed by him. On 8/21/15, the results of a Lexus Nexus address review identified the customer has resided at [redacted], [redacted], California since May 2011. A search was made using 411.com and whitepages.com and we were unable to locate a listing for the customer in [redacted]. Based upon the details available to us, we denied the claim due to possible Tax Preparer fraud. We encourage the customer to contact law enforcement and file a report. We will assist in the investigation upon receipt of a Court Order for records. Our Law Enforcement assistance line is: XXX-XXX-XXXX. Our Customer Service telephone number is: (XXX) XXX-XXXX.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/09/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
ACCOUNT NOW IS RIGHT I DID RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THERE RESPONSE, HOWEVER, I HAVE MOVED IN MORE THAN ONE OCCASION SINCE THEN. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO PROVE OR DO WITH MY CLAIM.
MY CLAIM IS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT MY CARD HAD BEEN USED WITHOUT MY AUTHORIZATION, NOT TAX PREPARER FRAUD.
I WILL FILE A REPORT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT AS REQUESTED IF YOU FEEL THAT WOULD HELP.
MONEYGRAM ACCOUNT NOW HAS HANDLED CLAIM IN AN UNFAIRLY MANNER I ASK THAT CLAIM BE REOPENED AND PROPER INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED.
I ASK THAT THE DEPOSIT ON ACCOUNT BE MAILED TO ME OR RETURNED TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FOR PROPER HANDLING.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ONLY MISTAKE FOR NOT GETTING MORE INFORMATION ON MONEYGRAM ACCOUNT NOW BEFORE TRUSTING MY FUNDS IN THERE HAND. THEIR MANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS CAN SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
I DO HOPE THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR ME AND A RESOLUTION BE MADE IN A QUICK AND FAIR MANNER.
THIS HAS CAUSED ME FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/10/05) */
Based upon the facts available to us, we stand behind the results of our investigation. We will cooperate with Law Enforcement upon receipt of a Subpoena, Search Warrant or Court Order. The AccountNow Law Enforcement line is: (XXX) XXX-XXXX.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2015/10/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
IF MY ACCOUNT CARD HAD UNAUTHORIZE CHARGES ON IT, AND I DID NOT USE IT WHY AM I BEING MISTREATED. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY DO YOU NEED A SUBPOENA, SEARCH WARRANT OR A COURT ORDER TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION YOU USED IN MAKING YOUR DECISION TO DECLINE THE CLAIM. THIS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, WHY WOULD I NEED TO GO TO COURT UNLESS I INTEND ON SUEING. I SEE ACCOUNT NOW HAS A HISTORY OF KEEPING THERE CLIENTS MONEY. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS. I WAS OFFERED THE HELP OF ABC NEWS, MIKE FINLEY ON YOUR SIDE. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO ALL OF THIS AND PERHAPS EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY WILL BE GIVEN A OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THERE ISSUE INVESTIGATED AND QUESTIONED AS WELL.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/13) */
The email notices provide the customer with the balance on a specific date and time. This is stated within the email. We also state that customer's should text or call for their current balance.
At the time the email was generated the...

customer balance was $64.71.
The Club Quarters $60.00 debit to the customer balance was an authorization hold which expired on 1/12/16.
On 1/13/16 we called the customer telephone number on the complaint and we were unable to reach the customer or leave a message as voicemail was not set up. We also called the telephone number listed on the account record and the telephone number is not accepting calls.
The customer may contact us at (XXX) XXX-XXXX with any additional questions.

On July 13, 2017, AccountNow reviewed the cardholder’s rebuttal and determined that the denial decision will stand for the following reasons:
The account was funded by six cash loads between June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, followed by the first disputed transaction on June 15, 2017.
There were not any balance inquiries made on the card while the disputed transactions occurred yet the balance was depleted, which indicates the user of the card was aware of the recent cash loads that funded the account.
There were not any attempted card present transactions made on the card after it was blocked on June 16, 2017, which indicates the user of the card was aware it was blocked without attempting a transaction.
On June 15, 2017 at 2:42PM EST. The cardholder called in from his confirmed telephone number: 704-918-0265. The cardholder stated that he is unable to buy a money order with his card. The cardholder verified the last four digits of his card ending in7740. The agent advised him of the spending limits. The cardholder did not state his card was stolen or report an unauthorized activity on the account. We compared the voice of the customer service call to the dispute call and the voices match.
The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at ([redacted].

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/04) */
The fee for an over the counter cash advance is 3%.
The $15.00 represents the fee that was assessed for the $500.00 cash advance. This is disclosed in the fee schedule available to all customers. Therefore this fee is valid. Customers have the...

option to withdraw cash from Automated Teller Machines or perform purchase cashback transactions for lower fees.

On May 22, 2017, an AccountNow attempted to reach the cardholder at the telephone number provided, there was not answer and voicemail message was left. 
 
On May 23, 2017, the cardholder contacted the AccountNow investigator back and the investigator informed the cardholder that the merchant [redacted] was able to locate an account under his social security number. The cardholder stated that he had an account with the merchant [redacted] five years ago but he did not pay them. The investigator advised the cardholder that based on the information from [redacted] as well as the denial reasons that were provided to him on the original complaint response we have determined that the claim denial decision will stand. The cardholder indicated that he did not want anyone from AccountNow to contact him again unless the dispute denial decision was overturned and otherwise he will sue AccountNow.

Well would do you know...I received a check in the mail today, April 5, 2016 in the amount of $19.87 from Account Now, dated March 30, 2016, once they received my complaint from the Revdex.com. I've been trying to receive it since February 10, 2016. Now let's see how long it takes for them to return my tax refund of $6775 back to the [redacted]. One thing for sure, I already asked the [redacted] to track my refund from Account Now. Glad I did, seeing that they were just holding on to MY money.

On 7/13/16 AccountNow called the customer and addressed the concerns listed in his complaint. We informed the customer that the claim was not awarded in is favor due to a variety of reasons. The card and PIN were in his possession and there were no PIN failures on the disputed transactions. Recent prior undisputed history with the 7-11 ATM in [redacted], CA. His prior undisputed history is consistent with the disputed spending pattern. The disputed transactions followed his ACH deposits which indicates the user was expecting his direct deposits to be applied to the account. The IP address used to access the account is the same IP address used since July 2015.
 
The customer stated that he changed his PIN after the disputed transactions had occurred and he wanted to know the relevance of this to the claim. We informed the customer that his PIN being changed would only be of concern if it occurred prior to or during the disputed transactions. We asked the customer if he knows anyone who had access to his card or PIN, and he said no one did.
The customer wanted to know what he could do to reverse the dispute decision and we asked the customer if he had confirmation that he was not the participant in the disputed transactions. The customer asked what would constitute confirmation and we asked the customer if he happened to file a police report. The customer said he did not file a police report because he did not know he needed to. We informed him that it is not a requirement of ours however Law Enforcement may be able to help him through an investigation of ATM records and video images.
At the conclusion of the call, the customer confirmed that he understood that the claim was going to remain denied based on the facts that we have available to us.
 
The customer may contact AccountNow at [redacted] with any remaining questions.
 Tell us why here...

The Revdex.com assigned two complaint numbers to this complaint; [redacted] and [redacted].
AccountNow response:
On 3/19/16 the customer account was restricted for identity, address and deposit verification. AccountNow does not disclose proprietary information about tools and investigative...

techniques used.
We advised the customer that we required copies of the receipts for the cash deposits along with a copy of front of card, the customer’s photo ID and address verification.
 
On 3/23/16 the customer provided documentation which was incomplete and illegible.
 
On 4/5/16 the customer provided documentation which was invalid.
 
On 4/19/16 we called the customer at the telephone number provided. The voicemail message states that the telephone number belongs to someone other than the customer and the mailbox is full.
 
We request the customer provide legible, non-expired copies of the requested documentation to AccountNow. The documentation may be uploaded to: upload.accountnow.com or the documentation may be faxed to: [redacted]. The customer may call us at ([redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Still not satisfied with Account Now Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because it's same response as the first one. I need someone to call meSincerely,[redacted]

On April 1, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow and filed a dispute indicating he had an unauthorized ATM transaction for $403.00 at 6[redacted] on card ending in [redacted]. The agent advised the cardholder on how to submit a dispute written notification, confirmed the...

cardholder’s address and issued a replacement card.
 
On April 1, 2017, we received the cardholder’s dispute written notification.
 
On April 5, 2017, AccountNow concluded its investigation and determined the following:
 
The card was in the cardholder’s possession.
There were not any balance inquiries or any declined transactions on the card while the disputed transactions occurred.
The balance on the account was depleted, which would indicate that the user of the card was aware of the account balance.
There were no pin updates nor was the pin changed immediately prior to the dispute.
 
Based on these findings, the investigator denied the claim.
 
On April 7, 2017, the dispute resolution letter was mailed to the cardholder.
 
On April 27, 2017, upon receipt of the complaint, an AccountNow investigator re-reviewed the dispute denial and determined the following:
 
The cardholder indicated there was an unauthorized ATM withdrawal on the account.
The disputed transaction occurred in Illinois but the cardholder resides in Georgia.
The cardholder does not have any prior transactions with the disputed ATM location.
The cardholder has a valid card present transaction at Waffle House on 4/1/17 at 5:44 CST in Marietta, GA. The disputed transaction occurred the same day in Chicago, IL at 1:54PM CST.
The use of the card in two different states indicates the use of a skimmed card.
Based on the facts available to us we are issuing final credit in the amount of $403.00 to the cardholder’s account.
Coaching will be provided to the team member who initially denied the claim.
 
On April 27, 2017, we contacted the cardholder at the telephone number provided to advise the dispute resolution has been re-reviewed and that final credit in the amount of $403.00 would post to the account by the end of the day, but the cardholder was unavailable. On April 28, 2017, AccountNow provided the cardholder with a $20.00 credit as a courtesy.  The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].
 Tell us why here...

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Sincerely,[redacted]  I submitted payment exactly as the instructions said, I followed up with Customer Service to ensure it as the correct way.  I received the following conformation Number [redacted].  I sent it via routing number [redacted], followed by account number [redacted], all of which was in my credit card package, and again I verified this information on 5-15-17 with Account nows customer service.  So I did exactly as the instructions read and doubled checked with Account Nows Customer service and my money is gone.  My bank insist that my money was sent in this exact manner.